This is law that was proposed when Jimmy Carter was president. It was blocked by anti-environmentalists who swept into power under terrible president Ronald Reagan. It's been down hill ever since. Are the people going to turn things around now forever?
They will if they come to realize that the system is fatally flawed and must be peacefully displaced with real Christianity and not the false version that's been promoted since Constantine usurped the faith.
Ascribe Newswire, May 21, 2008
[Rachel's introduction: Currently, U.S. chemicals law is so toothless that the U.S. EPA was unable to ban asbestos under its provisions, even though asbestos is perhaps the most potent cancer-causing substance ever introduced into commerce and kills about 10,000 people per year. Time for a new law.]
Amid rising concern over toxic chemicals in consumer products and in the bodies of Americans, landmark legislation has been introduced in Congress to make sure chemicals are safe before they are allowed on the market.
Under current law known as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), unchanged since 1976, most new chemicals are approved with little or no safety testing, and more than 62,000 existing chemicals have remained on the market for three decades despite evidence that some pose serious health risks. The Kid Safe Chemicals Act (KSCA), by Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Reps. Hilda Solis (D-CA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), would place the burden of proof on the chemical industry to show that chemicals are safe for children before they are added to consumer products.
Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group (EWG), whose tests found 287 industrial chemicals in 10 samples of umbilical cord blood, called KSCA a long-overdue move to put public health ahead of chemical industry profits.
"When babies come into this world pre-polluted with hundreds of dangerous industrial chemicals already in their blood, it's clear that the regulatory system is broken," said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group (EWG). "The Kid Safe Chemicals Act will change a lax, outdated system that presumes chemicals are safe into one that requires makers of toxic chemicals to prove their safety before they're allowed on the market."
KSCA does not propose to invent new public health criteria, but instead adopts tough health standards that chemical manufacturers already comply with for other products like pesticides and food additives, and applies these same standards to industrial chemicals that also end up in people.
A coalition of grassroots, state and national organizations led by EWG sent a letter to the lawmakers today applauding their action and pledging support as the work begins to make this legislation law. The letter and list of organizations is available at http://www.ewg.org.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)